{"markup":"\u003C?xml version=\u00221.0\u0022 encoding=\u0022UTF-8\u0022 ?\u003E\n \u003Chtml version=\u0022HTML+RDFa+MathML 1.1\u0022\n xmlns:content=\u0022http:\/\/purl.org\/rss\/1.0\/modules\/content\/\u0022\n xmlns:dc=\u0022http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/\u0022\n xmlns:foaf=\u0022http:\/\/xmlns.com\/foaf\/0.1\/\u0022\n xmlns:og=\u0022http:\/\/ogp.me\/ns#\u0022\n xmlns:rdfs=\u0022http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/01\/rdf-schema#\u0022\n xmlns:sioc=\u0022http:\/\/rdfs.org\/sioc\/ns#\u0022\n xmlns:sioct=\u0022http:\/\/rdfs.org\/sioc\/types#\u0022\n xmlns:skos=\u0022http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2004\/02\/skos\/core#\u0022\n xmlns:xsd=\u0022http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2001\/XMLSchema#\u0022\n xmlns:mml=\u0022http:\/\/www.w3.org\/1998\/Math\/MathML\u0022\u003E\n \u003Chead\u003E\u003C\/head\u003E\u003Cbody\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\u0022panels-ajax-tab-panel panels-ajax-tab-panel-jnl-bmj-tab-peer-review\u0022\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\u0022panel-display row bootstrap-onecol\u0022 \u003E\r\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022panel-panel col-xs-12 col-sm-12 col-md-12 col-lg-12\u0022\u003E\r\n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022panel-pane pane-jnl-bmj-peer-review\u0022 \u003E\n \n \n \n \u003Cdiv class=\u0022pane-content\u0022\u003E\n \u003Cdiv id=\u0022no-peer-review\u0022\u003E\u003Ch2\u003ESorry, there is no peer review to display for this article\u003C\/h2\u003E\u003Cp\u003EOur policy of displaying a paper\u0027s peer review history applies only to papers published from early 2015.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\u003Cp\u003EFor research papers \u003Cem\u003EThe BMJ\u003C\/em\u003E has fully open peer review. This means that accepted research papers submitted from September 2014 onwards usually have their prepublication history posted alongside them on thebmj.com.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EThis prepublication history comprises all previous versions of the manuscript, the study protocol (submitting the protocol is mandatory for all clinical trials and encouraged for all other studies at \u003Cem\u003EThe BMJ\u003C\/em\u003E), the report from the manuscript committee meeting, the reviewers\u2019 comments, and the authors\u2019 responses to all the comments from reviewers and editors.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EIn rare instances we determine after careful consideration that we should not make certain portions of the prepublication record publicly available. For example, in cases of stigmatised illnesses we seek to protect the confidentiality of reviewers who have these illnesses.\nIn other instances there may be legal or regulatory considerations that make it inadvisable or impermissible to make available certain parts of the prepublication record.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003Cp\u003EIn all instances in which we have determined that elements of the prepublication record should not be made publicly available, we expect that authors will respect these decisions and also will not share this information.\u003C\/p\u003E \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n \n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\r\n\u003C\/div\u003E\r\n\u003C\/div\u003E\u003C\/body\u003E\u003C\/html\u003E"}